1Demonstration 1 of 4
Screen a lumped thermal model
Does a computed time constant validate the material properties?
Compare the internal-conduction scale with surface heat transfer before accepting a uniform-temperature model.
Heat transfer h (W/m²/K). Sphere radius .01m; k=200W/m/K, ρ=2700kg/m³, c=900J/kg/K. Small Bi is a screening condition.
Predict first. Does a computed time constant validate the material properties?
Choose an example
Constructed teaching inputs; calculations executed locally. Supported menu choices are precomputed.
Calculated values
- Radius (m)
- 0.01
- Conductivity (W/m/K)
- 200
- Density (kg/m³)
- 2700
- Specific heat (J/kg/K)
- 900
- Heat transfer h (W/m²/K)
- 200
- Biot number
- 0.00333333
- Screen Bi < .1 passed
- True
- Lumped time constant (s)
- 40.5
Lc=r/3 gives Bi=0.00333333. The screen passes, so the lumped time constant τ=ρcLc/h=40.5 s is a reasonable estimate under assumed aluminium-like properties. The .1 screen is a rule of thumb; it does not validate real material properties or external heat transfer.
Use the idea
Use rule 18.3.5 when its stated conditions fit. Compare the calculation with your own decision threshold; retain the relevant error or uncertainty.
Where the conclusion applies
Sphere radius .01m; k=200W/m/K, ρ=2700kg/m³, c=900J/kg/K. Small Bi is a screening condition.
Check your understanding: Does a computed time constant validate the material properties?
Book source: Rule 18.3.5: Use lumped thermal capacitance only for small Biot number. Demonstration C18-D01. Worked illustration.
2Demonstration 2 of 4
Compare transport time scales
What does Pe≫1 indicate here?
The diffusion and advection time curves cross at a characteristic length.
Transport speed U (m/s). D=.01m²/s, positive speed and length; regime comparison does not supply boundary conditions.
Predict first. What does Pe≫1 indicate here?
Choose an example
Constructed teaching inputs; calculations executed locally. Supported menu choices are precomputed.
Calculated values
- Speed U (m/s)
- 0.1
- Diffusivity D (m²/s)
- 0.01
- Peclet at L=.1m
- 1
- Equal-time length (m)
- 0.1
At L=.1 m, Pe=UL/D=1. Flow and diffusion take equal time here. Boundaries and geometry still shape the details.
Use the idea
Use rule 18.3.2 when its stated conditions fit. Compare the calculation with your own decision threshold; retain the relevant error or uncertainty.
Where the conclusion applies
D=.01m²/s, positive speed and length; regime comparison does not supply boundary conditions.
Check your understanding: What does Pe≫1 indicate here?
Book source: Rule 18.3.2: Use Peclet number to compare advection with diffusion. Demonstration C18-D02. Worked illustration.
3Demonstration 3 of 4
Construct a dimensionless flow comparison
Can one Reynolds cutoff classify all geometries?
Use matched units to compare inertia with viscous effects at a fixed physical scale.
Speed U (m/s). ρ=1000kg/m³, L=.01m, μ=.001Pa s. Flow transition depends on geometry and disturbances.
Predict first. Can one Reynolds cutoff classify all geometries?
Choose an example
Constructed teaching inputs; calculations executed locally. Supported menu choices are precomputed.
Calculated values
- Density (kg/m³)
- 1000
- Length (m)
- 0.01
- Dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
- 0.001
- Selected Reynolds number
- 1000
With the disclosed density, viscosity and length, U=0.1 m/s gives Re=1000. Inertia outweighs viscosity, yet many flows are still smooth at this size; pipe flow, for example, usually stays laminar below about 2000. The exact switch point depends on geometry, so no single cutoff fits every flow.
Use the idea
Use rule 18.3.1 when its stated conditions fit. Compare the calculation with your own decision threshold; retain the relevant error or uncertainty.
Where the conclusion applies
ρ=1000kg/m³, L=.01m, μ=.001Pa s. Flow transition depends on geometry and disturbances.
Check your understanding: Can one Reynolds cutoff classify all geometries?
Book source: Rule 18.3.1: Use Reynolds number to compare inertia with viscosity. Demonstration C18-D03. Worked illustration.
4Demonstration 4 of 4
Feel the square law of diffusion time
How much longer does a 4 cm slab take than a 2 cm slab?
Diffusion time grows with the square of distance, so thickness matters more than intuition says.
Slab thickness L (m). Thermal diffusivity α=1e-5 m²/s (steel-like); order-of-magnitude estimate at Fourier number 1.
Predict first. How much longer does a 4 cm slab take than a 2 cm slab?
Choose an example
Constructed teaching inputs; calculations executed locally. Supported menu choices are precomputed.
Calculated values
- Thickness (cm)
- 2
- Thermal diffusivity (m²/s)
- 1e-05
- Penetration time (s)
- 40
- Time vs 2 cm slab
- 1
Heat diffuses through 2 cm in about L²/α=40 s (Fourier number 1). This is the reference slab. Time grows with the square of distance because diffusion is a random walk.
Use the idea
Use rule 18.3.4 when its stated conditions fit. Compare the calculation with your own decision threshold; retain the relevant error or uncertainty.
Where the conclusion applies
Thermal diffusivity α=1e-5 m²/s (steel-like); order-of-magnitude estimate at Fourier number 1.
Check your understanding: How much longer does a 4 cm slab take than a 2 cm slab?
Book source: Rule 18.3.4: Use Fourier number to estimate diffusion penetration time. Demonstration C18-D04. Worked illustration.
Bring the idea to a question of your own
Choose the relationship that answers your question, check its conditions, and compare the result with the accuracy or decision threshold you need.
The chapter skill can adapt these calculations to your inputs. It should name the assumptions, explain what the result supports, and say what still needs evidence. The chapter workbook adds a lab and three exercises with answers.